Case T‑272/12

Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s.
and
EP Investment Advisors s.r.o.

v

European Commission

(Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine — Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 November 2014

1.      Competition — Fines — Fine for procedural infringement — Infringement committed intentionally or negligently — Decision finding refusal to submit to an inspection — Burden of proof on the Commission — Limits

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(1)(c))

2.      Competition — Fines — Fine for procedural infringement — Infringement committed intentionally or negligently — Decision finding refusal to submit to an inspection — Commission not taking proceedings for infringement of the competition rules — Not relevant to characterisation of an infringement as procedural

(Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 20 and 23(1)(c))

3.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Possibility of the undertaking concerned fully relying on those rights only after the sending of the statement of objections — Obligation on the Commission to inform the undertaking of the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation at the stage of the first measure taken against it

(Council Regulation No 1/2003)

4.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission’s power of inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Scope

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4))

5.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Admissible evidence

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27)

6.      Competition — Fines — Fine for procedural infringement — Amount — Determination — Criteria — No guidelines — Obligation to state reasons for the decision imposing a fine — Scope

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(1)(c))

7.      Competition — Fines — Fine for procedural infringement — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Commission’s margin of discretion — Limits — Observance of the principle of proportionality

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(1)(c))

8.      Competition — Fines — Fine for procedural infringement — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Duration of the infringement

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(1)(c), and (3))

1.      In competition matters, as is clear from the wording of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission may impose fines where, intentionally or negligently, undertakings refuse to submit to an inspection. It is one of the two cases in which a fine may be imposed under that provision. The Commission has the burden of proving such a refusal. Thus, in accordance with that provision, the Commission bears the burden of proving that access was granted to the data contained in a blocked e-mail account, but is not required to prove that those data were manipulated or deleted.

(see paras 37, 39)

2.      The fact that the Commission has not taken proceedings against an undertaking for a breach of substantive law for the purposes of Article 101 TFEU after an inspection pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003 is irrelevant to characterisation of an infringement as a procedural one consisting in refusal by that undertaking to submit to that inspection. Having regard to the fact that inspection decisions are adopted at the start of an inquiry, there can be no question at that stage of assessing definitively whether the acts or decisions of the addressee entities or other entities can be regarded as agreements between undertakings, as decisions by associations of undertakings or as concerted practices contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU or as practices referred to in Article 102 TFEU.

(see para. 55)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 66, 67)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 68, 69, 72, 73, 75)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 85)

6.      In competition matters, since the Commission has not adopted any guidelines setting out the method of calculation which it is required to follow when setting fines under Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation No 1/2003, it is not required to express in figures, in absolute terms or as a percentage, the basic amount of the fine and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, provided its reasoning as to the fixing of the amount of the fine is disclosed in a clear and unequivocal fashion in the decision imposing it.

(see para. 101)

7.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 104-113)

8.      Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that, in order to determine the amount of the fine, it is necessary to take into account the duration of the infringement as well as its gravity. Since that provision draws no distinction between fines imposed for breaches of substantive law and for procedural infringements, the Commission is entitled to take into account the duration of the procedural infringement at issue when setting the amount of the fine.

(see para. 116)